List personal tokens

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the admin PAT requirement, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint not captured in annotations. However, it doesn't explain whether the returned tokens include sensitive values, whether tokens are truncated, or pagination behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise: two short sentences totaling about 10 words of actual content. Zero waste, front-loaded with the core action before the prerequisite. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It conveys the core purpose and the auth requirement. However, given that the tool deals with sensitive credentials (personal tokens), it could note whether token values are fully returned or masked, and whether the caller should expect the current user's tokens only vs. all users' tokens in an admin context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

This tool has 0 parameters, so there's no parameter information to convey. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since none exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb+resource: 'List the user's personal access tokens.' It identifies what is being listed (personal access tokens) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_api_keys, create_personal_token, and revoke_personal_token. The scope ('the user's') adds clarity about whose tokens are listed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage guidance is the requirement for an admin PAT ('Requires an admin PAT'). There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of how this differs from list_api_keys or list_migration_tokens. The admin requirement is useful but incomplete as usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.